In a reversal of a long-standing ban on most offshore drilling, President Barack Obama is allowing oil drilling 50 miles off Virginia's shorelines. At the same time, he is rejecting some new drilling sites that had been planned in Alaska.

Most of the eastern seaboard of the United States is to be opened for offshore drilling under Obama's proposal. Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida and Alaska are particularly affected.

The question is, how will Obama be criticised for this? This is a good Republican idea, so it might be difficult.

I'm betting that right wing Americans will now become fervent environmentalists.

My expectation is that Democrats will still keep calling people racists, sexists, and extremists no matter their true position. It's just about political points.

Why is Obama cancelling leases in Alaska? Why is the entire West Coast still off limits? Maybe drilling for oil is racist and so this allowing it in Virginia is sort of Obama's Missouri Compromise. You know he hopes to contain the institution and hopes it dies out in a hundred years or something like that.

My expectation is that Democrats will still keep calling people racists, sexists, and extremists no matter their true position. It's just about political points.

Why is Obama cancelling leases in Alaska? Why is the entire West Coast still off limits? Maybe drilling for oil is racist and so this allowing it in Virginia is sort of Obama's Missouri Compromise. You know he hopes to contain the institution and hopes it dies out in a hundred years or something like that.

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!

As Cato Institute energy analyst Jerry Taylor points out, the real reason we should do more offshore drilling is because theres at least $1.8 trillion of new wealth sitting in those reserves.

And from the linked Cato piece (a couple of years old):

Quote:

Likewise, arguing against drilling because the oil will take a decade or more to come to market in significant volumes which is likely correct is an argument against acting today to head off problems tomorrow.

Is seems that used to be a common argument used by the left.

I'm not all the worried about the "energy independence" or "foreign oil" concerns that so many have. I think these are unnecessary concerns in reality. I agree with Cato and Stossel on this. There's a vast amount of valuable potential resources (they're not actually "resources" until we start using them) sitting out there that we're not using and should be.

I had a quick squint at the comments on the article at the Fox website linked.

It seems the angle's the EPA. Many posts about Obama being evil because of the EPA. Whatever that is. But there are a couple of other crackers too! Here's some representative ones. These dudes make trumptman look like a paragon of impartiality.

Quote:

houdini1953

Most of the known oil is within 25 miles of the shores, this is one reason most companies will not drill at 50 miles out even if they could, so this is really not going to do anything about oil production!
Wednesday, March 31, 2010 at 6:18 PM

AH! Innovative!

Quote:

mcfatty

ANother sell-out to Big Oil. Obama claimed to be on the side of the enviroment and now he is killing America.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010 at 6:14 PM

Yup. Right wing environmentalists! Knew it.

Quote:

sunsu12
Indiana
thats what Bush did wrong, he didn't buy off the E.P.A. (Everybody Pays-Achtung)
Wednesday, March 31, 2010 at 6:12 PM

Oh... the EPA.

Quote:

lynningeorgia
Georgia
The proof will be in the pudding! Obama is like the magician that gets you watching his right hand so you don't see what he's doing with the left. Obama talks about new drilling but will make it virutally impossible using EPA!
Wednesday, March 31, 2010 at 6:10 PM

Most of the known oil is within 25 miles of the shores, this is one reason most companies will not drill at 50 miles out even if they could, so this is really not going to do anything about oil production!
Wednesday, March 31, 2010 at 6:18 PM

AH! Innovative!

I think what that comment is getting at is that "proven" oil reserves are those oil reservers that are profitable to produce. Obviously it's more profitable to produce oil in shallower waters, 25 miles, than deeper waters, 50 miles. Opening up drilling 50 miles out may be symbolic only because the cost of drilling out there is prohibitive.

I had a quick squint at the comments on the article at the Fox website linked.

It seems the angle's the EPA. Many posts about Obama being evil because of the EPA. Whatever that is. But there are a couple of other crackers too! Here's some representative ones. These dudes make trumptman look like a paragon of impartiality.

AH! Innovative!

Yup. Right wing environmentalists! Knew it.

Oh... the EPA.

Again!

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) In case you really did not know what it meant per your second paragraph. Otherwise, could not care less.

NoahJ"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi

I think what that comment is getting at is that "proven" oil reserves are those oil reservers that are profitable to produce. Obviously it's more profitable to produce oil in shallower waters, 25 miles, than deeper waters, 50 miles. Opening up drilling 50 miles out may be symbolic only because the cost of drilling out there is prohibitive.

I had a quick squint at the comments on the article at the Fox website linked.

It seems the angle's the EPA. Many posts about Obama being evil because of the EPA. Whatever that is. But there are a couple of other crackers too! Here's some representative ones. These dudes make trumptman look like a paragon of impartiality.

AH! Innovative!

Yup. Right wing environmentalists! Knew it.

Oh... the EPA.

Again!

So you're responding to comments that we haven't made...just random folks who commented on a FNC story? I take it that kills two birds with one stone...not only do you get to argue without the bother of those people responding, but you get to paint anyone with watches FNC as a moron. Well done.

Back to the question though: More drilling is good. He should allow more. I do have to chuckle that it also violates another campaign promises, but that has become par for the course with him.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Yes apparently the type of change Obama was advocating was continuing the work of George W. Bush.

Sure he isn't a really "changing anything" even while taking over two automakers, several banks, the entire student loan program and now controlling all of our health care but heck what do we know. There might still be 60-65% of the economy he doesn't control yet.

Most of the eastern seaboard of the United States is to be opened for offshore drilling under Obama's proposal. Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida and Alaska are particularly affected.

The question is, how will Obama be criticised for this? This is a good Republican idea, so it might be difficult.

I'm betting that right wing Americans will now become fervent environmentalists.

What are your expectations?

Lots of Dems are wondering what is going on. Why give concessions prior to making a deal? Well, he did the same thing with health care, and it worked.

I think the Obama strategy is this: He knows that Republicans will oppose whatever he does. So he co-opts a moderate version of the Republican position into his Dem position, forcing Repubs to either 1) agree with him, or 2) take some bizarro position in order to show their base that they don't agree with Obama the antichrist. Either way he wins. This is what he did with health care, and Repubs of course gladly obliged, and now are stuck arguing that they're opposed to all reform to a system that everyone agrees needed to be reformed.

He's boxing them into taking ridiculous and obviously partisan positions.

Lots of Dems are wondering what is going on. Why give concessions prior to making a deal? Well, he did the same thing with health care, and it worked.

I think the Obama strategy is this: He knows that Republicans will oppose whatever he does. So he co-opts a moderate version of the Republican position into his Dem position, forcing Repubs to either 1) agree with him, or 2) take some bizarro position in order to show their base that they don't agree with Obama the antichrist. Either way he wins. This is what he did with health care, and Repubs of course gladly obliged, and now are stuck arguing that they're opposed to all reform to a system that everyone agrees needed to be reformed.

He's boxing them into taking ridiculous and obviously partisan positions.

The polls don't reflect that and the claims that they haven't gotten worse after passage of health care simply means they didn't have much more ground to lose after already talking on and acting on it for so long.

People understand token measures. People will easily understand all of Alaska and the entire West Coast not being available and how that isn't the same thing as truly allowing drilling. The electorate will see right past token measures.

Republicans have already named their platform repeal and reform. Only the caricature creators will claim they stand for no reform of any kind. The very measures being parroted as most effective are those that almost everyone supports and would have voted for. It won't be hard to show the electorate they can have the 15% of bipartisan good without the 85% river of shit the Democrats are dragging everyone through to get that 15%. This is true of the stimulus with "shovel-ready" projects which also has not been effective nor done what was claimed.

So you're responding to comments that we haven't made...just random folks who commented on a FNC story? I take it that kills two birds with one stone...not only do you get to argue without the bother of those people responding, but you get to paint anyone with watches FNC as a moron. Well done.

OK. I'm going to make a public apology here by way of an answer.

When George Bush II was in power, if we were as bottomlessly fucking ANNOYING as right wing Americans are being right now, I'M REALLY SORRY. Because the dishonesty and hypocrisy is intolerable.

The point of this thread is this.

Barack Obama will be criticised even when he proposes action that was an extremely prominent part of the Palin-McCain manifesto. And they say stupid stuff. Sorry, SDW, but they say stupid shit, and they only say it because Obama suggested it.

Yes apparently the type of change Obama was advocating was continuing the work of George W. Bush.

Sure he isn't a really "changing anything" even while taking over two automakers, several banks, the entire student loan program and now controlling all of our health care but heck what do we know. There might still be 60-65% of the economy he doesn't control yet.

Barack Obama will be criticised even when he proposes action that was an extremely prominent part of the Palin-McCain manifesto. And they say stupid stuff. Sorry, SDW, but they say stupid shit, and they only say it because Obama suggested it.

What's interesting is that I see Obama doing some of the same things that GWB was vilified for by the left and the media which now seem rather silent on. I think all of this is symptomatic of the us vs. them mindset of party politics. People unable to see past partisan perspectives. Quite annoying to be honest.

This is a cute chart. But what it fails to show is the level of indirect involvement the various levels of governments in the U.S. "control" things in this country. I also wonder if it includes ownership of things like the public schools, roads and other publicly owned entities. The chart is deliberately narrow in its definition and a textbook example of a propaganda device. It clearly does not reflect the true extent to which the various levels of government of the U.S. dominate and control the private sector. Most estimates have the total governmental budgets comprising anywhere from 35-50% of the country's GDP. And that's just a purely financial measurement and doesn't reflect the control effected through regulation, licensing, etc.

I've seen things similar as well. The understanding of controlling versus owning is easy to comprehend if you've run or have a business.

If the government leases a building in that chart it would be blue. When the government dictates and regulates and pays the plans in the health care programs, they will be blue because the government doesn't own hospitals as an example. They merely hold the strings to the puppet. The puppet is privately owned but will still have to dance in exactly the manner prescribed by the government.

When George Bush II was in power, if we were as bottomlessly fucking ANNOYING as right wing Americans are being right now, I'M REALLY SORRY. Because the dishonesty and hypocrisy is intolerable.

The point of this thread is this.

Barack Obama will be criticised even when he proposes action that was an extremely prominent part of the Palin-McCain manifesto. And they say stupid stuff. Sorry, SDW, but they say stupid shit, and they only say it because Obama suggested it.

But that's just totally false. You've been given specific answers. Drilling is good...more drilling is better. It's also worth nothing he campaigned on keeping the offshore ban in place.

Quote:

And they say stupid stuff. Sorry, SDW, but they say stupid shit, and they only say it because Obama suggested it.

Who? The random ass people that you quoted? You're doing it again. We can't defend these people, nor are they here to defend themselves. They are not necessarily representative of conservatives, whether or not they are posting on the FNC site.

Clear enough?

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

But that's just totally false. You've been given specific answers. Drilling is good...more drilling is better. It's also worth nothing he campaigned on keeping the offshore ban in place.

Who? The random ass people that you quoted? You're doing it again. We can't defend these people, nor are they here to defend themselves. They are not necessarily representative of conservatives, whether or not they are posting on the FNC site.
?

Which constituency do they belong to?

It's simply dishonest to argue that 98% of the comments posted on the Fox site aren't posted by people with a conservative viewpoint. The other 2% are liberal trolls. Er... just go and look. As a means of sampling the current of conservative opinion, in an unscientific but absolutely serious way, the comments on the Fox news site will do just as well as reading the comments at The Guardian in Britain or the Huffington Post will do for evil liberals.

(Have you seen Fox' 'Fox Nation' by the way? It is, in absolute seriousness, a Tea Party forum. It's... extraordinary. All Anti Obama, All the Time. http://www.thefoxnation.com/ )

Yes, they're "random ass" people. They are "random ass" people with a conservative viewpoint.

I merely masked "on what grounds will conservative Americans dismiss Obama's drilling proposals?" And I found a selection. That's all. I don't want you to "defend" those people. They don't need "defending." I don't care that they're not here. I merely asked how conservative Americans might dismiss Obama's proposal.

I found some answers.

Voila. End of story. If you find the hypocrisy embarrassing or against your taste, that's not my problem in any way at all.

So. John Boehner. I know hes not here to defend himself but he certainly counts as part of my target constituency of right wing Americans, being the Congressional minority leader of the Republican Party.

Obamas plan to open up the eastern seaboard of the United States defies the will of the American people.

And, interestingly, he makes exactly the same point as dozens of the comments on the Fox news article. Its all about the EPA.

Quote:

"At the same time the White House makes todays announcement, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is plotting a new massive job-killer that the American people cant afford: a cascade of new EPA regulations that will punish every American who dares to flip on a light switch, drive a car, or buy an American product. Americans simply dont want this backdoor national energy tax that will drive up energy and manufacturing costs and destroy jobs in our states and local communities," the Ohio Republican said.

Heavens above. Its almost as if the conservative community, like many evil liberal people, follow talking points of some nature.

No problem. You characterized the nature of the Fox News forums and the people who hang out there. Since you are quoted information from there and feel you have frequented it enough to characterize it, you have included yourself among those whom you just characterized.

All I did was note the petard you hoisted yourself upon. I'm not the one calling the two percent of liberals who go read and hang out there liberal trolls.

Please report this because it I want to die from laughing over the fact that someone reported someone else for noting they called themselves a name.

You weren't just playing an April Fool's Joke there were you? (Hint: I'm giving you an out to save yourself some embarrassment)

For the record I don't think it is an unreasonable thing to question whether or not what Obama is announcing will ever really happen. This isn't uncommon at all. Politicians know that most people don't read the fine print or don't really investigate things beyond headlines and sound bites. So they make a great headline like "Obama authorizes offshore drilling" which gets out and socialized and embedded into people's brains, but then behind the scenes he knows full well that it won't actually happen due to some obscure regulatory limitations or lawsuits he knows will prevail that prevent it from happening. It's actually a very clever technique. he did something very similar with the whole abortion funding executive order.

No problem. You characterized the nature of the Fox News forums and the people who hang out there. Since you are quoted information from there and feel you have frequented it enough to characterize it, you have included yourself among those whom you just characterized.

All I did was note the petard you hoisted yourself upon. I'm not the one calling the two percent of liberals who go read and hang out there liberal trolls.

Please report this because it I want to die from laughing over the fact that someone reported someone else for noting they called themselves a name.

You weren't just playing an April Fool's Joke there were you? (Hint: I'm giving you an out to save yourself some embarrassment)

Yes. LOL. That really is the most hilarious thing in the whole world. LOL.

I have absolutely no idea at all what your post means, but, like you say, LOL LOL LOL and indeed LULZ.

I think I understand that you're saying I'm a troll? Because I found some quotes or I commented on the people who make comments on the Fox site? I think that's what you're saying.

It's simply dishonest to argue that 98% of the comments posted on the Fox site aren't posted by people with a conservative viewpoint.

This is a clever one that the Dems have been using lately. It's like watching Monty Python. The posters being conservative doesn't translate to them representing mainstream views or even average intelligence. Secondly, you've cherry-picked the quotes. Then, you argue with them instead of us. The whole thing is absurdly stupid.

Quote:

The other 2% are liberal trolls. Er... just go and look. As a means of sampling the current of conservative opinion, in an unscientific but absolutely serious way, the comments on the Fox news site will do just as well as reading the comments at The Guardian in Britain or the Huffington Post will do for evil liberals.

Neither "does well" for anything. If you want to take issue with their comments, post on the FNC site.

Quote:

(Have you seen Fox' 'Fox Nation' by the way? It is, in absolute seriousness, a Tea Party forum. It's... extraordinary. All Anti Obama, All the Time. http://www.thefoxnation.com/ )

Yes, they're "random ass" people. They are "random ass" people with a conservative viewpoint.

<Family Guy>Who..the HELL...CARES</Family Guy>

Quote:

I merely masked "on what grounds will conservative Americans dismiss Obama's drilling proposals?" And I found a selection. That's all. I don't want you to "defend" those people. They don't need "defending." I don't care that they're not here. I merely asked how conservative Americans might dismiss Obama's proposal.

I found some answers.

Voila. End of story. If you find the hypocrisy embarrassing or against your taste, that's not my problem in any way at all.

So...you found answers. You read comments on a web site, and decided that's how conservatives would react? the only question you answered is "how might some cherry-picked folks who happened to post on FNC's site react."

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

trumptman, a troll is someone who intentionally stirs up anger by posting inflammatory shit. That's what the definition of troll is.

Just look it up and ease off the LOLZ. Because words don't mean something just because you will it.

LOL.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001

This is a clever one that the Dems have been using lately. It's like watching Monty Python. The posters being conservative doesn't translate to them representing mainstream views or even average intelligence. Secondly, you've cherry-picked the quotes. Then, you argue with them instead of us.

Hey SDW. I'm not arguing with them. I'm merely quoting them to make a point. I could have gone to redstate, or Powerline, or elgallocrows, or any of the important places on the internet where people meet to discuss who evil liberals are.
I was sampling conservative opinion. That's all. I never claimed they represented "average intelligence" or whether they were elite political analysts. Foxcom news. is as useful a place to sample conservative opinion as the Huffington Post is for liberal opinion.

I can't think of anything else to add, because this is clearly true, and ten minutes on each place will be enough to convince anyone that this is true. You can deny this, but that doesn't do much for your credibility.

Yes. I "cherry picked them". From a single page, I took all the ones discussing the subject. I left behind all the "IMPEACH OBAMA" stuff.

And if you want to deny they represent mainstream conservative opinion I guess that makes John Boehner an absolute wingnut, because he was on TV yesterday criticising the plan for the exact same reasons as those people on Foxnews.com. I even provided a link and a quote above.

Again, if you find the hypocrisy distasteful, or embarrassing, don't attack me for simply bringing it to your attention.

trumptman, a troll is someone who intentionally stirs up anger by posting inflammatory shit. That's what the definition of troll is.

Just look it up and ease off the LOLZ. Because words don't mean something just because you will it.

LOL.

Wait.... are you seriously demanding..... that I laugh less?!?

Do you deny that liberal trolls are the only people on the left side of the political spectrum who would read the Fox News Forums? Please prove yourself wrong here.

Listen Hassan, you don't have to sit here and put up with me laughing too much. You can go to the Fox News forums and have them laugh at you there. You already said I was no where near as conservative as they are there so really. Take the fight to the most strident defenders of the cause Hassan.

Do you deny that liberal trolls are the only people on the left side of the political spectrum who would read the Fox News Forums? Please prove yourself wrong here.

Listen Hassan, you don't have to sit here and put up with me laughing too much. You can go to the Fox News forums and have them laugh at you there. You already said I was no where near as conservative as they are there so really. Take the fight to the most strident defenders of the cause Hassan.

You are that 2%! You can do it!

I have no fucking idea what point you're trying to make here. In order to be a troll you have to make a post. Since all I was doing was reading stuff, I can't be a troll.

That's the end of that, really, unless you can convince everyone else on the internet that your new definition supersedes the old one.

Seriously. Just leave this one alone and find something I've actually done. LOL.

What's interesting is that I see Obama doing some of the same things that GWB was vilified for by the left and the media which now seem rather silent on. I think all of this is symptomatic of the us vs. them mindset of party politics. People unable to see past partisan perspectives. Quite annoying to be honest.

And it seems the two parties are simply two wings of the same aircraft. Faces will change but the flight path remains the same.

The public is simply told what to think by both right wing and left wing tinted (acting) media outlets who sell adverts to all sides of the economic landscape.

Many seem to forget that when Bush and the republicans were in power they gave us the largest expansion of government in history (at the time) with the prescription drug plan.

Where were the conservatives then?

Ohhhh.... that's right... When the republicans do something like this it's "ok"

Take a look:

Quote:

"a big election was coming up that Bush and his party were desperately fearful of losing. So they decided to win it by buying the votes of America's seniors by giving them an expensive new program to pay for their prescription drugs."

"the unfunded drug benefit, which added $15.5 trillion (in present value terms) to our nation's indebtedness, according to Medicare's trustees, was worth sacrificing his integrity to enact into law."

trumptman, a troll is someone who intentionally stirs up anger by posting inflammatory shit. That's what the definition of troll is.

Just look it up and ease off the LOLZ. Because words don't mean something just because you will it.

LOL.

Hey SDW. I'm not arguing with them. I'm merely quoting them to make a point. I could have gone to redstate, or Powerline, or elgallocrows, or any of the important places on the internet where people meet to discuss who evil liberals are.
I was sampling conservative opinion. That's all. I never claimed they represented "average intelligence" or whether they were elite political analysts. Foxcom news. is as useful a place to sample conservative opinion as the Huffington Post is for liberal opinion.

I can't think of anything else to add, because this is clearly true, and ten minutes on each place will be enough to convince anyone that this is true. You can deny this, but that doesn't do much for your credibility.

Yes. I "cherry picked them". From a single page, I took all the ones discussing the subject. I left behind all the "IMPEACH OBAMA" stuff.

And if you want to deny they represent mainstream conservative opinion I guess that makes John Boehner an absolute wingnut, because he was on TV yesterday criticising the plan for the exact same reasons as those people on Foxnews.com. I even provided a link and a quote above.

Again, if you find the hypocrisy distasteful, or embarrassing, don't attack me for simply bringing it to your attention.

You simply cannot understand the problem with what you're posting. Your "sample" is utterly and fatally flawed. There was absolutely no reason to post those comments. They have nothing to do with this forum. They are simply random folks posting on on Fox News.

No worries though, you're not alone. I've seen this tactic used before. It's sort of a strawman variation.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.